2024 (12) TMI 1564 - AT - Income Tax

Allowability of Mines Closure Plan as admissible expenditure in the year under consideration - as submitted the said amount set apart by the assessee was in the nature of a provision and thus not allowable as expenditure - HELD THAT - The minerals extracted by the assessee is to be used in their captive power plant for generation of power means the lignite extracted will contribute as raw material for production of power. The assessee earned revenue from the sale of power which is duly refracted in the financial of the assessee and not under challenge by the revenue in that case how the cost of procuring raw material can be disallowed. Here we are applying the concept of matching revenues with relevant costs to earn the revenue. If the same is being disallowed it will be detrimental to the interest of the assessee as he has to pay undue taxes on notional income. With this action of revenue will distort the picture of revenue earned by the assessee alongwith losing the character of being true and fair. In contradistinction to this fact even if it is a assumed for the time being that instead of extracting the raw material from the mines under consideration the assessee has to by the goods being raw material from the market in that case also cost of purchase has to be allowed to match the revenue with the cost hence we are not in agreement with the orders of the AO and CIT (A) that amortization of mining lease charges are not allowable. The payment made by the assessee to land owners via its joint venture partner i.e. M/s. Rajasthan State Mines and Mineral Ltd. RSMML (Govt. of Rajasthan under taking) for facilitating routine operations and smooth functioning of the business of the assessee. It was held in the case of CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. 1979 (10) TMI 68 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT That the power line remained the property of the District Board and the assessee had not acquired any capital asset or any enduring benefit or advantage. The payment was made for commercial expediency. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly held the expenditure as revenue expenditure. Levying interest u/s. 234A - delay in filing the return by one month - HELD THAT - As the observation of CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee on 29.11.2016 is within the specified time and therefore no interest u/s. 234A of the Act can be levied. In view of above AO is directed not to charge interest u/s. 234A of the Act. Ground taken by the assessee is allowed. Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) allowable u/s. 37(1) - HELD THAT - The provision for CER which is made in compliance to the statutory provisions is wholly and exclusively for carrying out the mining activities. The provision so made is a crystallized liability in as much as if the assessee fails to carry out the CER activities in accordance with the direction of MOEF the same may result in withdrawal of the environment clearance and attract the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act 1986 as stipulated in the aforesaid letter. Provision so created cannot be equated with the CSR expenditure incurred as per section 135 of the Companies Act 2013 for the reason that as per this section only companies having net profit are required to incur CSR whereas the CER expenditure are as per the guidelines of Ministry for Environment Protection is mandatorily required to incur irrespective of profit or loss of the company and levied on a lump sum basis or per tonne of extraction done by the assessee. Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in assessee s own case. or A.Y. 2012-13 2018 (7) TMI 2369 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT A.Y. 2013-14 2019 (10) TMI 1612 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT and A.Y. 2014-15 2019 (10) TMI 1613 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT after considering the various decisions has allowed the provision made for CER expenditure in compliance to the guidelines of Environment Ministry. Hence only because revenue has filed appeal before Hon ble Supreme Court cannot be a reason to disallow the claim of assessee. It is further bring to the notice of the bench that the appeal of the Revenue before the Hon ble Supreme Court has also been dismissed and this fact is on record and accepted by both the parties concerned. Addition on account of interest on income tax refund - same was withdrawn while completing the assessment u/s. 143(3) - HELD THAT - As observed through the paper book filed by the assessee that in the year under consideration assessee has not received any refund in as much as this refund was adjusted against the demand for A.Y. 2012-13. Thereafter the assessment for A.Y. 2016-17 was framed u/s. 143(3) in which additions were made. As a result the refund was withdrawn and the demand was raised. Thus the interest which was granted on 07.09.2017 has been withdrawn on 13.11.2018. These facts required verification of the assessment records and orders passed time to time in view of the above; we restore the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction that an opportunity be given to the assessee for substantiating its contentions and verification of the facts involved. This ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Rejecting the claim of assessee for interest u/s. 244A - HELD THAT - The refund has been granted by way of adjustment against the demand in A.Y. 2012-13 on 18.12.2019. Therefore interest u/s. 244A of the Act is to be calculated from 01.04.2018 to 18.12.2019 i.e. for 21 months. All these facts were explained before the Ld. CIT (A) but the same were ignored by him. In view of above matter is restored back to the AO. Mine closure plan as admissible expenditure - The said amount set apart by the assessee was in the nature of a provision and thus not allowable as expenditure? - HELD THAT - It is observed that the mine closure cost is claimed as expenditure for fixation of the transfer price of lignite by Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC). This is evident from the fact that the assessee has filed an application before RERC for determination of transfer price of lignite for Kapurdi Mine for F.Y. 2015-16. Mine closure cost has been taken into consideration for price fixation of lignite. Considering the same the RERC vide order dt. 01.04.2015 has determined the Interim Transfer Price for F.Y. 2015-16 (PB 136-141) at which rate the assessee is raising invoices to the customer. Thus it is a fact on record that the mine closure cost is recovered by way of price for lignite. Hence the AO has incorrectly observed that by simply filing the petition with RERC for determination of Transfer price which includes component of mine closure charges is not enough to hold that by disallowing the mine closure cost there is no double taxation here. We are agreed with the contentions of the assessee that the liability discussed and mentioned are statutory liabilities and are unavoidable in nature secondly the same has already been recovered in the revenue of the assessee and duly offered for tax. Hence disallowing the same will tantamount to double taxation and otherwise also the same is not liable for disallowance. In view of the above discussion Ground No. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. Addition made by treating the interest earned during pre-operative period as income chargeable to tax under other sources - HELD THAT - The interest receipt cannot be charged to tax as income from other sources but is to be reduced from the cost to be capitalized in respect of Jalipa mines.

Summary

Issues Presented and Considered

1. Whether the claim of expenditure on Mines Closure Plan made by the assessee is allowable as a deductible expense under the Income Tax Act, or whether it is merely a provision and hence not admissible as expenditure.

2. Whether the interest earned during the pre-operative period on funds deposited in an escrow account is taxable as income under the head 'Income from Other Sources' or should be adjusted against the project cost as a capital receipt.

3. Whether the claim for amortization/depreciation of surface rights (rights to extract minerals without ownership of land) is allowable as a deductible expense.

4. Whether the levy of interest under section 234A for delay in filing the return is justified when the assessee has complied with the statutory requirements related to specified domestic transactions.

5. Whether the disallowance of expenditure claimed as Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) under Explanation 2 to section 37 is correct, considering such expenditure is a statutory obligation distinct from Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

6. Whether the addition of interest on income tax refund and rejection of claim for interest under section 244A is justified.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Allowability of Mines Closure Plan Expenditure

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Ministry of Coal's Mine Closure Guidelines (dated 07.01.2013) mandate the estimation and provision of mine closure costs annually, to be deposited in an escrow account. The relevant provisions under the Income Tax Act include section 37(1) (allowing expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business) and judicial precedents such as Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. v. CIT and Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. v. DCIT, which recognize statutory liabilities related to mining as allowable expenses.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the provision for mine closure cost is an ascertained liability, mandated by statutory guidelines, and deposited in an escrow account with restricted use. The amount is not a mere deposit but an expenditure that will be discharged in due course. The Tribunal rejected the AO's characterization of the provision as a deposit rather than an expenditure.

Application of Law to Facts: The assessee has been making provisions for mine closure cost based on the Ministry of Coal guidelines, depositing these amounts in an escrow account. The Tribunal noted that the amount is recovered by the assessee through the transfer price of lignite fixed by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC), thereby avoiding double taxation. The Tribunal relied on the principle of matching costs with revenues to hold that disallowing such expenditure would distort the true income.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue contended that the provision is a mere accounting entry or deposit and not an allowable expense, and that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal held that pending litigation does not justify disallowance, especially when the issue has been decided in favor of the assessee by coordinate benches and the High Court.

Conclusion: The claim for mine closure plan expenditure is allowable as a deductible expense under section 37(1) of the Act for the assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19 and 2020-21.

2. Taxability of Interest Earned During Pre-operative Period

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd., Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT, and CIT v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. establish that interest earned on borrowed funds or deposits made for capital projects, which are inextricably linked to the capital cost, are capital receipts and not taxable as income from other sources. Conversely, the decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. holds that interest earned from investing borrowed funds not linked to business activities is taxable as income.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the interest earned on funds deposited in the escrow account (operated by M/s. RSMML) is directly linked to the project cost of acquiring land and mining rights. Since the funds are borrowed for the project and the interest earned reduces the overall project cost, it cannot be treated as income from other sources. The Tribunal distinguished the Tuticorin case as not applicable here due to the direct nexus of interest income with the capital project.

Application of Law to Facts: The assessee's funds, largely borrowed, are deposited in escrow accounts to facilitate land acquisition and mining operations. Interest earned on these deposits is credited to the Capital Work in Progress (CWIP) account, reducing the capital cost. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission and the Government of Rajasthan's directions that interest earned should reduce project costs.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The AO and revenue argued that the interest income is taxable under other sources and that the issue is sub judice before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal noted that coordinate benches and the High Court have ruled in favor of the assessee and that the Supreme Court's decision in Bokaro Steel Ltd. supports the assessee's position.

Conclusion: The interest earned during the pre-operative period on escrow account deposits is not taxable as income from other sources but must be adjusted against the capital cost of the project.

3. Allowability of Amortization/Depreciation of Surface Rights

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act allows depreciation on intangible assets granted by Government authorities. The assessee claimed amortization of surface rights (rights to extract minerals) which do not confer ownership of land but grant mining rights for a fixed period.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal held that the surface rights acquired are intangible assets akin to mining leases enabling extraction of lignite for 30 years. The cost incurred to acquire these rights is a capital expenditure that should be amortized over the period of the lease. The Tribunal applied the principle of matching costs to revenues, noting that the extracted minerals are raw materials for power generation, and disallowing amortization would distort profits.

Application of Law to Facts: The assessee incurred capital expenditure reimbursing its JV partner for land acquisition and mining lease rights, which was capitalized as surface rights. The Tribunal observed that ownership of land is not transferred but the right to extract minerals is granted, which qualifies as an intangible asset eligible for amortization.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The AO disallowed amortization, holding the land is not a depreciable asset and rights acquired are not government-granted intangible assets. The Tribunal disagreed, distinguishing ownership rights from mining rights and relying on the matching principle and relevant judicial authority.

Conclusion: Amortization of surface rights is allowable as a deductible expense under the Income Tax Act.

4. Levy of Interest under Section 234A for Delay in Filing Return

Legal Framework: Section 139(1) read with Explanation 2(aa) provides an extended due date for filing returns where specified domestic transactions are involved, subject to furnishing prescribed reports under section 92E.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the assessee filed the return on 29.11.2016, within the extended due date of 30.11.2016 applicable due to specified domestic transactions and furnishing of the audit report in Form 3CEB on 28.11.2016. Hence, no delay occurred.

Application of Law to Facts: The AO levied interest for delay assuming the due date as 31.10.2016. The Tribunal noted the assessee's compliance with statutory requirements and rejected the AO's assumption.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The CIT(A) upheld the levy due to lack of evidence of statutory compliance, but the Tribunal found the evidence submitted sufficient.

Conclusion: No interest under section 234A is leviable as the return was filed within the due date.

5. Disallowance of Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) Expenditure under Explanation 2 to Section 37

Legal Framework and Precedents: Explanation 2 to section 37 disallows expenditure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). However, CER is a statutory obligation under environmental clearances, distinct from CSR under Companies Act, 2013. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) guidelines mandate CER expenditure irrespective of profit.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal distinguished CER from CSR, noting that CER is a mandatory condition precedent for mining activities. The Tribunal relied on MOEF's Office Memorandum and prior decisions of the Rajasthan High Court allowing CER expenditure as deductible.

Application of Law to Facts: The assessee claimed CER expenses as per MOEF conditions. The AO disallowed them treating them as CSR expenses. The Tribunal held the AO's disallowance incorrect, especially as the revenue's appeal before the Supreme Court has been dismissed.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue argued that Explanation 2 disallows such expenditure and that the matter is sub judice. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing statutory nature of CER and prior judicial rulings.

Conclusion: CER expenditure is allowable as a business expense under section 37(1).

6. Addition of Interest on Income Tax Refund and Rejection of Interest Claim under Section 244A

Legal Framework: Section 244A provides for interest on income tax refunds from 1st April of the assessment year till the date of refund. The refund may be granted by adjustment against demand.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the interest on refund for A.Y. 2016-17 was initially granted but subsequently withdrawn upon reassessment. The Tribunal restored the matter to AO for verification and opportunity to the assessee. For A.Y. 2018-19, the Tribunal found that AO incorrectly computed interest for a shorter period and rejected the assessee's claim for higher interest. The matter was remanded to AO for correct computation and verification.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal emphasized the correct period for interest calculation and the need to consider adjustments against demands in refund computations.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The CIT(A) upheld AO's orders without detailed computation. The Tribunal found this approach incorrect and directed reassessment.

Conclusion: The issues regarding interest on income tax refund require reassessment and verification; hence, the grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

Significant Holdings

"The provision made for mine closure cost is as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Coal and is an ascertained liability which is required to be deposited in an Escrow Account and thus assessee has no control over this amount to utilize the same in any manner it wishes. Therefore the amount claimed is not a deposit but is an expenditure for which liability is provided which would be discharged subsequently out of the amount kept in the Escrow Account."

"The interest earned on funds deposited in the Escrow Account is inextricably linked to the cost of the project and therefore such interest receipt cannot be charged to tax as income from other sources but needs to be reduced from the cost of the project."

"The amortization of surface rights is allowable as a deductible expense since the rights to extract minerals for a fixed period constitute an intangible asset and the expenditure incurred is capital in nature to be matched with revenue earned from sale of power generated using such minerals."

"Where an assessee has complied with statutory requirements for specified domestic transactions and filed return within the extended due date, interest under section 234A for delay in filing return is not leviable."

"Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) expenditure mandated by environmental clearance conditions is distinct from Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and is allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act."

"Interest on income tax refund under section 244A should be computed from 1st April of the relevant assessment year till the date of refund, including cases where refund is adjusted against demand; incorrect computation warrants reassessment."